2«<» S. VIII. Oct. 16. '69.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



315 



the English fleet landing these forged assignats in 

 large quantities at dead of night. He says that 

 one boat's crew was caught in the fact, and gib- 

 beted in sight of the ships. He has also given 

 me the name of a brother officer, now or lately 

 resident in the South of England, as having been 

 employed in this particular service. I refrain 

 from giving these names here, as having no per- 

 mission so to do. 



In conclusion, I would remark that it is scarcely 

 to be credited that any private firm would have 

 undertaken so extraordinary and dangerous a 

 business as the forgery and distribution of these 

 assignats without the complicity or sanction of 

 government; and not being skilled in Jesuitical 

 distinctions as to the exact share of blame to be 

 awards to principal or to agent, I am driven to 

 the conclusion that the memory of the " heaven- 

 born" Pitt must remain slurred with all the odium 

 that must attach to so disi-eputable an artifice. 

 Meanwhile, it is satisfactory to think that we have 

 made some progress in the morality of war since 

 that day. E. C. Robson. 



Sunderland. 



AUTHOH OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBBEWS. 



(2"'^ S. viii. 247.) 



The absence of an apostle's name, as author of 

 this Epistle, caused it to be disputed by some 

 who set it aside as not being one of St. Paul's 

 Epistles. (Euseb. H. E., iii. 3.) Its anonymous 

 character deprived it prima facie of claim to a 

 place in the canon. This objection, however, is 

 met by Pantaenus (Euseb. II. E., vi. 14.), who 

 says : — 



" Since the Lord, who was the Apostle of the Almighty, 

 was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, by reason of his inferi- 

 ority, as if sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself 

 an Apostle of the Hebrews, both out of reverence for the 

 Lord and because he wrote of his abundance to the 

 Hebrews, as a herald and Apostle of the Gentiles." 



And Clemens Alexandrinus, the pupil of Pantsenus, 

 says (Euseb. H. E., vi. 14.) : — 



" But it is probable that the title, Paul the Apostle, was 

 not prefixed to it. For as he wrote to the Hebrews, who 

 had imbibed prejudices against him, and suspected him, 

 he wisely guards against diverting them fron< the pe- 

 rusal, by giving his name." 



If there had been an historical tradition on 

 which Pantaenus and Clement of Alexandria could 

 Lave relied, this would have been more satisfac- 

 tory than the reasons above given for the omission 

 of any apostolic character, or even any declara- 

 tion that it was written by command or permis- 

 sion of God or the church. Again, the style of 

 the Epistle to the Hebrews was early discovered 

 to vary from that of the thirteen acknowledged 

 Epistles of the Apostle Paul. To meet this ob- 



jection, Origen (a.d. 185 — 253) admits (Euseb. 

 H. E., vi. 25.) that 



" the style of the Epistle with the title ' to the Hebrews,' 

 has not that vulgarity of diction which belongs to the 

 Apostle, who confesses that he is but common in speech ; 

 that is, in his phraseologj-. But that this Epistle is more 

 pure Greek in the composition of its phrases, every one 

 will confess who is able to discern the difference of style. 

 Again, it will be obvious that the ideas of the Epistle are 

 admirable, and not inferior to any of the books acknow- 

 ledged to be apostolic. Every one will confess the 

 truth of this who attentively reads the Apostle's writings. 

 But I would say, that the thoughts (vo^/iora) are the 

 Apostle's; the diction, however, and phraseology Qh Se 

 ^pao-ts Koi -i] vvvBea-i^) belong to some one who has recorded 

 (o.TTOMi'rjuoveuo-ai'Tds) what the Apostle said, and as one- 

 who noted down at his leisui'e ((rxoXio^pac^^o-ai'Tos) what 

 his master dictated. If, then, any church considers this 

 Epistle as coming from Paul, let it be commended for this, 

 for neither did those ancient men [^four or five generations 

 previous] deliver it as such without cause. But who it 

 was that really wrote the Epistle, God only knows ! The- 

 account, however, that has been current before us is, ac- 

 cording to some, that Clement, who was Bishop of Rome, 

 wrote this Epistle ; according to others, that it was writ- 

 ten by Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts." " But,"' 

 adds Eusebius, " let this suffice on these subjects." 



It was still an open question, then, in the Eastern 

 church at this period, whether St. Paul was or 

 was not the author of this Epistle. In the Latin 

 church, Irenseus and Hippolytus deny that it was 

 Paul's. (Stuart, i. 147. s. 16.) Jerome and Au- 

 gustine agree that the predominant opinion of 

 Christian churches was, that this Epistle was not 

 written by Paul. (Stuart, i. 154. s. 16. ; 157. s. 17.) 

 Stuart, who unfortunately omits the important 

 words above quoted, " the thoughts are the 

 Apostle's" (i. 127. s. 14.), considers Origen as re- 

 presenting Clement and Luke merely as amanu- 

 enses of Paul : but, if Origen so intended, why 

 did he use so solemn an expression on the subject 

 as " but who it was that really wrote the Epistle, 

 God only knows " ? Now the word used by 

 Origen, aTrofj.vrjfiovfvaai'rSs, is the same as Xeno- 

 phon uses in reference to Socrates : what we now 

 call memoirs Xenophon terms airofj.i'rjfj.ovfvfji.aTa. 

 Very probably Origen had Xenophon's Socratea 

 in his mind at the time. Xenophon has a just 

 claim to the diction, phraseology, and composition ; 

 but the thoughts in the main are those of Socra- 

 tes. Did Luke then, or Clement of Eome, take 

 the position of Xenophon herein ? As to Clement, 

 he has quoted passages from the Hebrews, without, 

 .however, as is his custom, naming his author. 

 Quoting from Hebrews then, as the work of an- 

 other, he cannot be himself the author. 



With respect to Luke there is no doubt that, 

 in writing the Acts of the Apostles, he had op- 

 portunity of constant reference to St. Paul for his 

 facts ; and, being a Gentile, he would necessarily 

 represent to St. Paul the opinions he entertained 

 of Judaism from the Gentile point of view. There 

 were five years from the publication of the last 



